HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Puck in face: Another 2 close calls

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2005, 11:23 PM
  #51
WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Registered User
 
WhiskeyYourTheDevils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
i hate it when this happens. ever watch hockey when they played w/ no helmets, nobody dare raise their stick over their hips, out of respect. Now, with players groing up with masks on, there are no consequences for raising your stick or shooting a wild shot. So when they get to the NHL, sticks and pucks are flying around like they never used to.

Sure blame the better equipment on the puck flying around, still players should take personal responsibility for where the puck that THEY shot travels. Alot of times it gets deflected, and thats unfortunate, but when defenseman from the point wind up and slap a puck (ala what happened to JR when he got hit), the player should be able to keep the puck below four feet (crossbar height). Their is no reason to raise it up any higher.

I think this problem needs to be solved from the roots. Start kids playing with shields, not masks, then make it mandatory at every level of hockey, this way their is consistency in how a player grows and plays the game. The eyes should definitely be protected, but putting masks on kids was the worst thing to happen to hockey since Gary Bettman was born.

Players lost respect for fellow players and control of their sticks. Just look at how hockey was once played and you'll agree that their was more respect and MUCH LESS high sticking. If you dont think it has anything to do with mandatory masking of children, then i would like to hear a better reason.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils is online now  
Old
10-18-2005, 11:58 PM
  #52
paxtang
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Harrisburg
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensGuy
Shane Doan got a nasty cut over his eye tonight as well.
And JR took that nasty puck to the jaw last season!!!!!

When will the make full shields mandatory!?!?!

Won't somebody think of the children?????

paxtang is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 12:01 AM
  #53
ScottieB27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: City of Champions
Country: Canada
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
I have to cash in my thoughts on this issue....

I really wish Cherry would have never made a deal out of players wearing visors. This is the biggest flavour-of-the-month I've seen in some time, only this time it seems like it actually might gain some steam and be placed in effect. I cannot understand, how we can sit here and debate this topic. Are any of us NHL-level stars? Do we have ownership or stakes in a particular team? Do any of us really have a right in attempting to determining whether a player should be FORCED to wear even more mandatory 'saftey equipment'. There are a HELL of a lot of players out there who refuse to wear one, or at least would prefer the democratic choice in the matter. Read: the entire LA team, for starters.

There is too much belly-aching going on over an issue that should have never come into public light. A player has a responsibility to his team and city's fans... very humerous, most players would head to the next state over come free agency if they offer to pay him a few more bucks a year. If a coach or GM prefers his team to wear visors, and Player A refuses, fine- trade/deal the guy elsewhere. There must come a point, I think we can ALL agree, where safety has to take a back seat to comfortability and freedom of choice. Ryan Smyth sprained his knee last week, out for many weeks.. LET'S MAKE KNEE BRACES MANDATORY~! ON BOTH LEGS!! Anyone who thinks that sounds ridiculous, that is exactly how I, and many other fans/players feel... it's hockey, these are big boys, they make enough money based on thier performance to judge whether or not they should wear certain restricting equipment.
What makes 2005 more important to introducing visors than 2000, 1990, or 1970? Nothing - it's the flavour of the month. Leave the guys the freedom to choose. Or else you'll see toe-protectors in 2010, you know- to stop players from stubbing their big toe in practice. An inury could cost the owners some money... since I doubt any of us were actually ON the owner's side of the CBA lockout.. I think you're scratching deep to find support for a crazy point of view.

This is not my opinion, this is a FACT. Deal with it.

ScottieB27 is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 12:07 AM
  #54
Nfumass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 943
vCash: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieB27
I have to cash in my thoughts on this issue....

I really wish Cherry would have never made a deal out of players wearing visors. This is the biggest flavour-of-the-month I've seen in some time, only this time it seems like it actually might gain some steam and be placed in effect. I cannot understand, how we can sit here and debate this topic. Are any of us NHL-level stars? Do we have ownership or stakes in a particular team? Do any of us really have a right in attempting to determining whether a player should be FORCED to wear even more mandatory 'saftey equipment'. There are a HELL of a lot of players out there who refuse to wear one, or at least would prefer the democratic choice in the matter. Read: the entire LA team, for starters.

There is too much belly-aching going on over an issue that should have never come into public light. A player has a responsibility to his team and city's fans... very humerous, most players would head to the next state over come free agency if they offer to pay him a few more bucks a year. If a coach or GM prefers his team to wear visors, and Player A refuses, fine- trade/deal the guy elsewhere. There must come a point, I think we can ALL agree, where safety has to take a back seat to comfortability and freedom of choice. Ryan Smyth sprained his knee last week, out for many weeks.. LET'S MAKE KNEE BRACES MANDATORY~! ON BOTH LEGS!! Anyone who thinks that sounds ridiculous, that is exactly how I, and many other fans/players feel... it's hockey, these are big boys, they make enough money based on thier performance to judge whether or not they should wear certain restricting equipment.
What makes 2005 more important to introducing visors than 2000, 1990, or 1970? Nothing - it's the flavour of the month. Leave the guys the freedom to choose. Or else you'll see toe-protectors in 2010, you know- to stop players from stubbing their big toe in practice. An inury could cost the owners some money... since I doubt any of us were actually ON the owner's side of the CBA lockout.. I think you're scratching deep to find support for a crazy point of view.

This is not my opinion, this is a FACT. Deal with it.

I agree 100%, Great Post

Nfumass is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 12:40 AM
  #55
Zetterberg4Captain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maken
In our sad world, players will be forced to wear visors in the near future. I don't like it one bit, but I realize that it's coming.

A man ceases to be a man when he cannot choose.
Whats the difference if they wear them or not? Oh my gosh players have to wear visors im never watching the NHL again blah blah blah.

Zetterberg4Captain* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 05:52 AM
  #56
Kimi
Registered User
 
Kimi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Country: England
Posts: 3,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieB27
I have to cash in my thoughts on this issue....

I really wish Cherry would have never made a deal out of players wearing visors. This is the biggest flavour-of-the-month I've seen in some time, only this time it seems like it actually might gain some steam and be placed in effect. I cannot understand, how we can sit here and debate this topic. Are any of us NHL-level stars? Do we have ownership or stakes in a particular team? Do any of us really have a right in attempting to determining whether a player should be FORCED to wear even more mandatory 'saftey equipment'. There are a HELL of a lot of players out there who refuse to wear one, or at least would prefer the democratic choice in the matter. Read: the entire LA team, for starters.

There is too much belly-aching going on over an issue that should have never come into public light. A player has a responsibility to his team and city's fans... very humerous, most players would head to the next state over come free agency if they offer to pay him a few more bucks a year. If a coach or GM prefers his team to wear visors, and Player A refuses, fine- trade/deal the guy elsewhere. There must come a point, I think we can ALL agree, where safety has to take a back seat to comfortability and freedom of choice. Ryan Smyth sprained his knee last week, out for many weeks.. LET'S MAKE KNEE BRACES MANDATORY~! ON BOTH LEGS!! Anyone who thinks that sounds ridiculous, that is exactly how I, and many other fans/players feel... it's hockey, these are big boys, they make enough money based on thier performance to judge whether or not they should wear certain restricting equipment.
What makes 2005 more important to introducing visors than 2000, 1990, or 1970? Nothing - it's the flavour of the month. Leave the guys the freedom to choose. Or else you'll see toe-protectors in 2010, you know- to stop players from stubbing their big toe in practice. An inury could cost the owners some money... since I doubt any of us were actually ON the owner's side of the CBA lockout.. I think you're scratching deep to find support for a crazy point of view.

This is not my opinion, this is a FACT. Deal with it.
Didn't read what you wrote, but I'll pick out a few things that make it not worth reading. Look at the bold, see the problem?

Kimi is online now  
Old
10-19-2005, 07:36 AM
  #57
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by formsoldier
Wow yeah that's a great attitude. Not at all or naive or anything.

While we're at it we can skip all the alcoholic and drug rehabilitation centers .. I mean, they chose to drink and do drugs. Not much we can do. Or just because teenage girls who're getting younger and younger in age when they dress try their first thongs have chosen to do it themselves...then it's ok. We shouldn't be thinking about that either, it's their choice. Or how about old people that have chosen to isolate themselves in their homes. Yeah they like it, let em rot.

Human nature..always thinking she does good when she's aiding someone who needs to be aided and has been forced upon with trouble and misery. Makes us feel good about ourselves.

It's the same things with visors. If we at least don't want it to be up for discussion, because it's their choice, then I think this world will be in trouble. We have this much trouble with sports, a fraction of how many other problems we have in the world. But such a fine example as to why we have em.

No disrespect to you personally though.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can take a totally individual thing like wearing a hockey visor and compare it to some MUCH, MUCH complex problem bothering the society.

Anyone who can even remotely link adult men choosing whether or not to wear visor in a rink while playing hockey and teenage girls choosing whether to wear revealing clothes or whether to get wasted or not is seriously out of the loop.

If you can't see the difference between those two then it's totally useless to continue this argument.

Pepper is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 07:42 AM
  #58
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Fact is that visors don't prevent all facial injuries - why don't we make it mandatory for players to wear full-masks? Or how about forcing players to wear neck and kneebracelets and a spinal board? How about we force them to wear HANS-devices from Formula 1? That would sure help!

Oh wait I know, how about if we remove boards so there can't be violent hits? Maybe we could remove the ice and replace it with grass to ensure that there are no injuries when players fall to ice? How about if we remove the skates and make them wear snow-shoes to prevent cutting wounds? How about we make the puck from styrofoam and sticks light flexible plastic?

Exaggaration to make a point naturally but do you see where this is headed? First helmets, then visors, then full-masks and soon titanium-kevlar-carbonfibre full body armor.

The current rules are just fine.

Pepper is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 11:46 AM
  #59
Maken*
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hiding Behind Talent
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AG
Whats the difference if they wear them or not? Oh my gosh players have to wear visors im never watching the NHL again blah blah blah.
I don't care if a guy wants to wear a visor or not, Brad Richards is one of my favourite players, visor or not. I happen to agree with freedom of choice... it's hockey, there is a risk of injury when you step on the ice. A helmet does not intefere with your field of vision, visors do. In that split second that you get fogged up, or see some glare, you could have made a quicker/better decision.

Maken* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 01:08 PM
  #60
Chootoi
Registered User
 
Chootoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
i think it's kind of like seatbelts. you can make them mandatory in every car, but still, not everyone is going to wear them or wear them properly. you can enforce it, but people will still get around it. with the visors, if you watch junior hockey where it's mandatory, they all wear the visors, but they have them up around their foreheads, and they have their mouthguards (i think, also mandatory) half hanging out of their mouths.

Chootoi is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 01:10 PM
  #61
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 17,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopi

Enforce visors now, before someone goes blind.
You'll shoot your eye out!! (sorry, couldn't resist)

TehDoak is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 01:38 PM
  #62
formsoldier*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
It never ceases to amaze me how people can take a totally individual thing like wearing a hockey visor and compare it to some MUCH, MUCH complex problem bothering the society.

Anyone who can even remotely link adult men choosing whether or not to wear visor in a rink while playing hockey and teenage girls choosing whether to wear revealing clothes or whether to get wasted or not is seriously out of the loop.

If you can't see the difference between those two then it's totally useless to continue this argument.
It's about princips.

formsoldier* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 01:50 PM
  #63
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyman28
i hate it when this happens. ever watch hockey when they played w/ no helmets, nobody dare raise their stick over their hips, out of respect. Now, with players groing up with masks on, there are no consequences for raising your stick or shooting a wild shot. So when they get to the NHL, sticks and pucks are flying around like they never used to.

Sure blame the better equipment on the puck flying around, still players should take personal responsibility for where the puck that THEY shot travels. Alot of times it gets deflected, and thats unfortunate, but when defenseman from the point wind up and slap a puck (ala what happened to JR when he got hit), the player should be able to keep the puck below four feet (crossbar height). Their is no reason to raise it up any higher.

I think this problem needs to be solved from the roots. Start kids playing with shields, not masks, then make it mandatory at every level of hockey, this way their is consistency in how a player grows and plays the game. The eyes should definitely be protected, but putting masks on kids was the worst thing to happen to hockey since Gary Bettman was born.

Players lost respect for fellow players and control of their sticks. Just look at how hockey was once played and you'll agree that their was more respect and MUCH LESS high sticking. If you dont think it has anything to do with mandatory masking of children, then i would like to hear a better reason.
Well, nothing that you do at the grassroots level would ever prevent what happened to Steve Yzerman in '03-04--a deflected puck off the stick of a point shot square in the eye.

Can visors prevent all facial injuries? Of course not, but the helmet isn't complete safe either. A guy can still fall on the ice, hit his head and the blood will start to flow and he'll be out like a light. Does that mean we shouldn't have mandatory helmets either?

To me, this issue has more to do with evolution than freedom to choose. And I think it's safe to say that if players were being paid by the millions back in the day that things like helmets and visors would have surfaces much much sooner.

If I spend $95 cdn on a hockey ticket, the last thing I want is for the star player to be out of the lineup because of a completely preventable injury like a puck to the orbital bone. Will I NOT pay the money? No, I will because I love hockey. But that's my point. Why cheat the fans out of a few games here and there when it's not necessary. Fans will have to endure injuries already, we all know that going into the season. But I don't know how we can prevent these groin problems, or the sports hernia/abdominal muscle pull, etc.

I do, however, know how we can avoid the fractured orbital bone from a puck to the eye.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 01:58 PM
  #64
formsoldier*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,005
vCash: 500
And by the way, I didn't say we should make visors mandatory either ...

I was just disturbed by the fact that you neglected it and didn't want to discuss it with what seemed to be, a definite expression. This issue needs to be discussed a lot and to just write it off like that, doesn't cut it, imo.

formsoldier* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 02:17 PM
  #65
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by formsoldier
It's about princips.
Now that's where you go wrong.

Pepper is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 05:32 PM
  #66
formsoldier*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Now that's where you go wrong.
Nope, I'm not wrong.

formsoldier* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 09:53 PM
  #67
kira
Registered User
 
kira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: www.datsyuk13.com
Country: Ireland
Posts: 15,694
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to kira Send a message via Yahoo to kira
I heard tonight that Ken Holland is going to talk to the Wings players and suggest that they wear the visors, but he will not make it mandatory. Right now the only ones on the Wings that do wear them is Pasha, Kirk Maltby, Steve Yzerman, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg...and I have a feeling when Kris Draper comes back he will start wearing one again as well.

kira is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 09:56 PM
  #68
Claypool*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: St Vincent and the Grenadines
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyman28
ever watch hockey when they played w/ no helmets, nobody dare raise their stick over their hips, out of respect.

that has nothing to do with players getting hit in the face with pucks.

Claypool* is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 10:03 PM
  #69
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,250
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
I don't know how but on OTR last night Lindros mentioned that he doesn't wear a visor because it prevents him from seeing other players coming in on him, that the line across his vison gives him a blind spot.

so in that sense is it safer for someone with concuscion history like Eric to not wear one if the lack of a visor cuts down on being blindsided?

certinly the idea of vision in regards to personal saftey never crossed my mind till last night when Lindros said that.

Honestly I'm not sure exactly how it limits his vision of other players but I'll take his word for it, he has worn them in the past.

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 10:07 PM
  #70
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,250
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyman28
when defenseman from the point wind up and slap a puck (ala what happened to JR when he got hit), the player should be able to keep the puck below four feet (crossbar height). Their is no reason to raise it up any higher.
Well it's two different Era's, back in the no helmet days almost all goalies played the stand-up style, and it was easier to wire a low slapshot to beat them.

then along came Roy and goaltending was never the same again, today a majority of the goalies play the Butterfly style or some hybrid version of it, this takes away the bottom of the net and if you want to beat them you have to shoot high.

The players are not perfect, they're all human, even the best players in the world when shooting high can't keep it under the crossbar all the time.

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
10-19-2005, 11:42 PM
  #71
WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Registered User
 
WhiskeyYourTheDevils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claypool
that has nothing to do with players getting hit in the face with pucks.
well if players are hit in the face, when they have on a visor, they wont go blind. They may break a jaw or lose some teeth, but vision is safe. If we start kids off with visors instead of masks, there are consequences to getting hit in the face with a stick (because you get hit under the visor). No vision lost, maybe a bad cut or bruise, at worst a broken jaw (which happened to JR).

But when another kid raises his stick and clips a guy in the mask, he will continue to do so because no harm done. But if that same kid hits a kid in the face who is wearing a visor, the other kid will likely be cut or otherwise hurt and the player will learn to not raise his stick.

I hope this board sees where im coming from, because the players in the NHL now believe their are no "real" consequences for raising a stick when growing up.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils is online now  
Old
10-20-2005, 12:42 AM
  #72
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
So you're game for mashing up the faces of kids, hoping they will "learn" not to do so?

alanschu is offline  
Old
10-20-2005, 11:47 AM
  #73
kira
Registered User
 
kira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: www.datsyuk13.com
Country: Ireland
Posts: 15,694
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to kira Send a message via Yahoo to kira
You can add another player to the list of those who will be wearing a visor from now on..Kris Draper says he has already added one on to his helmet.

There's a pic of him in today's Detroit News...he says it scared his kids when they saw it.

kira is offline  
Old
10-20-2005, 12:55 PM
  #74
pavel13
Registered User
 
pavel13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,703
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to pavel13
Are people forgetting that there are already numerous MANDATORY safety precautions in the NHL? Helmets, pads, gloves, goalie masks, breakaway goalposts, safety netting, glass.

It's not real hockey unless you're completely naked!

The argument that visors limit vision is made moot by the fact that practially every piece of equipment that hockey players use limit their performance in some way. If players didn't have to wear pads and clothes, they wouldn't have that extra weight to slow them down. But it effects nearly all players equally, so it's not an issue. Same for visors, IMO.

pavel13 is offline  
Old
10-20-2005, 03:34 PM
  #75
WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Registered User
 
WhiskeyYourTheDevils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu
So you're game for mashing up the faces of kids, hoping they will "learn" not to do so?
well, yea id rather have kids get cut and bruised rather than lose their vision when they are older. Its not like the kids will be bruised there whole life.

Unless you want kids to wear facemasks at all times, there is nothing to protect them from getting hit in the face with a ball, falling on their face off a bike, getting scratched by a pet. Throughout time, people have had their faces hurt, but its not a life ruining thing. Losing your vision can be.

Surely you have had your face hurt, cut up, bruised, maybe a fracture nose or something. It happens to the most of us. And we all survive.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.